Trowbridge v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.2d 825 · 1951
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road (1961), Bucher v. Krause (1952)
88 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Palmer v. Hoffman · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendant argues on appeal that there was no evidence of negligence because no witness identified any defect in the wheel. Defendant's version of the law would cast upon a plaintiff in a case such as this an almost impossible burden; for where an abrasive wheel disintegrates, direct proof of the existence of a defect might be virtually impossible. See Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 1944, 353 Mo. 558 , 183 S.W.2d 140 , 156 A.L.R. 469 . The burden of the scientific limitations of our society should not be cast on injured plaintiffs in circumstances such as existed in the instant case." (190 F.2d p. 828)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The qualification of an expert is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge. It has been reiterated time and again that an appellate court will reverse on this ground only when the decision of the trial judge is clearly erroneous.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant contends, however, that this evidence is inadmissible because plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to testify with respect to prac tices in the abrasive wheel industry. It is admitted that the expert, one Dr. Peskin, is a graduate engineer, with extensive experience in industry. His specialty is the strength of materials, and he has had considerable theoretical training in that field at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was an instructor at that institution, and received his Doctor of Science Degree there in 1936. Defendant asserts that Dr. Peskin was not qualified to testify because he has had no practical experience in the manufacture of abrasive wheels.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.